03.BA260029 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case:   
 
 
BA260029 – Smith Property 
 
Hearing Date:  
 
June 18, 2026 
 
Supervisor District: 
 
3 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Applicant/Property Owner: 
Nicole Smith  
 
Request: 
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit: 
 
1) 
Front (north) setback of 5’ where 40’ is the minimum required per MCZO, 
Sec. 502 
 
Site Location: 
APN 211-68-019C @ 843 E Carlisle Rd in the Desert Hills area 
 
Site Size: 
 
 
1.2 Acres  
 
Current Use / Zoning: 
Single Family Residence / Rural-43 
 
 
Background: 
 
1. 
June 6, 1956: New River Paradise subdivision is recorded. The subject parcel is included as part 
of Lot 19 on the recorded plat. 
 
2. 
December 27, 2018: Parcel is created via unregulated land division. 
 
3. 
August 3, 2021: Current owner takes possession of the subject property. 
 
4. 
May 13, 2022: Primary residence building permit B202207063 file date. 
 
5. 
January 2, 2024: Detached accessory building permit B202400050 approved at the southeast 
corner. 
 
6. 
April 2, 2026: Subject variance request filed for a future Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) proposed 
within the front yard setback. 
 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 
 
7. 
On-site: 
Rural-43 / Single Family Residence 
 
North:  
Rural-43 / Single Family Residence 
South:  
Rural-43 / Single Family Residence 
East: 
 
Rural-43 / Single Family Residence 
 
West:  
Rural-43 / Single Family Residence

Page 2 of 10 
 
Variance Request: 
 
8. 
The applicant is proposing an 800 sf ADU to be setback 5’ from the northern lot line. However, the 
required front yard is formed by the 40’ minimum front setback line which runs the length of the 
north lot line.  Buildings such as the proposed ADU are prohibited within the required front yard.  
The applicant requests variance to permit a 5’ front setback line. 
 
Excerpt from proposed site plan 
 
 
Site Condition 
 
 
Site Analysis: 
 
9. 
The property is part of an unregulated lot split area accessible via easement from the north. A 
significant wash runs through the southern and eastern perimeters of the property.

Page 3 of 10 
 
Aerial photo of subject site

Page 4 of 10 
 
Drainage Conditions

Page 5 of 10 
 
Aerial image & surrounding environs

Page 6 of 10 
 
Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated 3/1/2025).

Page 7 of 10 
 
Zoning District map 
 
 
Zoning District Standards: 
 
10. 
The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning 
district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in 
bold). 
 
 
Standard 
 
RU-43 
Zoning 
District 
Proposed with 
Variance 
Min. Front Yard Setback (north)  
40’ 
5’ 
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south) 
40’ 
n/a 
Min. Side Yard Setbacks (west and east) 
20’ 
n/a 
Maximum Height  
40’ 
40’ 
Minimum Lot Area 
43,560 sf 
52 360 sf 
Minimum Lot Width 
145’ 
166’+ 
Lot Coverage 
25% 
25% 
 
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards 
 
  
 
State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the 
Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar

Page 8 of 10 
 
conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the 
general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.”  
 
11. 
Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and 
explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied.   
 
“Despite the 1.2-acre size, the "buildable envelope" is severely restricted by a unique combination 
of topographical and legal constraints: 
• Environmental Constraints (Natural Wash): The property is substantially encumbered by a large 
natural wash that surrounds the east and south borders of the lot. Development within or too near 
the wash is restricted by drainage regulations, effectively “shrinking” the usable acreage of the lot. 
• Utility Easement (Communal Well): A communal well is located on the southeast corner of the 
property which carries a mandatory 100-foot setback for any habitable structures or septic 
components. There is also an easement to allow accessibility running along the south and west 
border of our lot. This "exclusion zone" renders the majority of the rear and side yards unbuildable. 
• Pre-Existing Infrastructure: The central and rear portion of the lot is occupied by the primary 
residence and a pre-existing shop. The pre-existing septic system and it's required 100% reserve 
area are located in the front-central area, further limiting foundation placement. 
• Topographical Hardship: Due to the wash and the well radius, the only remaining stable "high 
ground" capable of supporting an 800-square-foot foundation is located within the northern front-
yard area." 
 
 
12. 
Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property 
create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an  
unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance are applied.  Explain how the that the peculiar condition of the property came to be and 
whether the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. 
Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all 
peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, 
shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how 
enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on 
the property. 
 
“A strict application of the 40-foot front setback (Section 502) would work an unnecessary hardship 
by depriving the property owner of the right to build a secondary dwelling—a privilege commonly 
enjoyed by other 1.2-acre RU-43 properties with fewer environmental constraints. This hardship is 
not self-imposed; it is a direct result of the site’s natural topography and the legal safety 
requirements of the community water source. The 800-square-foot size is the minimum necessary 
for a functional, ADA-compliant living space. The 5-foot setback is the minimum variance required 
to keep the structure out of the wash and maintain the 100-foot safety buffer from the well." 
 
13. 
Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose 
of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain 
how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance 
would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 
 
“• Preservation of Character: With a 1.2-acre lot, the addition of an 800-square-foot unit, a 2,520-
square-foot primary residence, and a 2,000-square-foot shop results in a total lot coverage of 5,320-
square-feet, which equals a 10.18% lot coverage, well below the 30% maximum allowed in Section 
502. This maintains the open, rural character of the RU-43 district.

Page 9 of 10 
 
• Visual Harmony: As a flag lot, the property is set back from the main road and sits behind another 
residence. The proposed 5-foot setback will not be visible to the general public and will not create 
a "crowded" appearance from the street. 
• Privacy and Screening: The ADU is positioned to act as a visual buffer between our property and 
the neighbor to the north, increasing privacy for both parties. Also, due to the position of our lot, the 
ADU will not be in close proximity to any neighbor’s primary living space or high-use outdoor areas. 
• Public Safety: This placement ensures the structure remains on high ground, avoiding the flood 
risks associated with the wash, protects the community’s water supply by respecting the 100-foot 
well radius, and does not impede access for emergency vehicles and utility maintenance." 
 
 
Findings:  
 
14. 
The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set 
forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the 
relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the 
applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning 
district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone 
in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its 
inquiry stops, and the application must be denied. 
 
If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self-
imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary 
hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning 
ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the 
property without the variance.  
 
If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and 
that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar 
physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must 
find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of 
the zoning ordinance. 
 
In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion 
memorializing the above.   
 
15. 
Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the 
following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: 
 
• 
A wash running through the southern and eastern perimeter of the property push development 
of the parcel to the northeast. 
• 
The north lot line is considered the front lot line because an access easement terminates at 
the north lot line in the northwest corner of the parcel.  The north lot line is the front lot line 
but there is not a street that physically provides frontage along the length of the north lot line. 
• 
These two factors may be considered peculiar conditions facing the property that when the 
ordinance’s front setback requirement is applied creates an undue physical hardship not selt-
created that prevents reasonable development of the lot. It would significantly reduce the 
buildable area of the lot for development of detached accessory structures in relation to the 
actual street frontage. 
 
16. 
And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its 
findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following: 
 
a) 
Variance approval establishes a 5’ front (north) setback line for APN 211-68-019C.

Page 10 of 10 
 
 
Presented by: 
Daniel Johnson, Planner 
Reviewed by: 
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager  
 
Attachments: 
Case Map (1 page) 
 
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) 
 
Site Plan (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
3
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated May 29, 2026 1:35 PM
BA260029
Application Name:
Legal Description
Smith Property
Applicant
Case Address
6N-3E-33
Nicole Elizabeth Smith
843 E CARLISE RD PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:211-68-019C
6023015344
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Map scale 1:782
Supervisor District No.
Front yard setback variance for an ADU

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
12/2/24 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE 
PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION 
APPLICATION FORM 
 
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE REQUEST 
Description of Request: 
Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: 
Related Case Number(s): 
PROPERTY INFORMATION 
Address (if known): 
General Location (include nearest city/town): 
 
Size in Acres: 
Square Feet: 
Legal Description: 
Section: 
Township: 
Range: 
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 
Subdivision Name (if applicable): 
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes  
  No  
APPLICANT INFORMATION 
Name: 
Contact: 
Address: 
City: 
State: 
Zip: 
Phone #: 
Fax #: 
E-mail Address: 
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION 
Name: 
Contact: 
Address: 
City: 
State: 
Zip: 
Phone #: 
Fax #: 
E-mail Address: 
PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION  
I (property owner) 
 
authorize (applicant’s name) 
to file this application on all matters relating to this request with Maricopa County. By signing this form as the property owner I hereby agree to 
abide by any and all conditions that may be assigned by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning 
Commission, or Maricopa County Planning and Development Department staff as applicable, as part of any approval of this request, including 
conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my property. 
PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER – SIGNATURE REQUIRED  
The property owner acknowledges that the approval being sought by this application may cause a reduction in the existing rights to use, 
divide, sell or possess the private property that is the subject of this application.  The property owner further acknowledges that it is the 
property owner who has requested the action sought by the filing of this application.  Therefore, with full knowledge of all rights granted to 
the property owner pursuant to A.R.S.§1§12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in 
value of the property with regard to any action taken by Maricopa County as result of the filing of this application. 
Property Owner Signature: 
Date: 
INSPECTIONS 
By submitting this application, I am inviting County staff to conduct all site inspections they deem necessary. 
VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION  –  SIGNATURE REQUIRED  
I certify that the statements in this application and support material are true. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance 
upon the truthfulness of these statements may be revoked or rescinded.  
Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: 
Date: 
ARS § 1605 TIMEFRAME EXTENSION  
I authorize a 50% timeframe extension for the review of my application as adopted by the Board of Supervisors per ARS § 1605 and as 
amended. 
 
Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________   Date: 
  __4/2/2026____________________________ 
4/2/2026
VARIANCE FOR LOCATION OF AN ADU
RU-43,  Primary Home
843 E Carlise Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85086
New River/Desert Hills
1.20
52,360.00
211-68-019C
New River Paradise

Nicole Smith
Nicole Smith
843 E Carlise Rd
Phoenix
AZ
95-86
(602) 301-5344
Nicole and Adam Smith
Nicole Smith
843 E Carlise Rd
Phoenix
AZ
85086
(602) 301-5344
Nicole Smith
Nicole Smith
BA260029 RCVD 4/14/26
5' front yard setback request
B202207063, B202400050

Variance Request: RU-43 Development Standards 
1) Regulation to be Varied: We are requesting a variance from the RU-43 Development 
Standards (Section 502), which mandates a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet. We 
propose a reduction to a 5-foot front yard setback to allow for the construction of a 
detached approximately 800-square-foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). 
 
Proposed Use: The proposed use is the construction of a permanent, approximately 800-square-
foot detached ADU on a 1.2-acre lot. This unit is intended to provide essential housing for family 
members requiring close care and supervision. The structure is designed to be subordinate to the 
primary residence in both scale and function, adhering to the intent of "Guest Houses" and 
"Secondary Dwellings" defined in Chapter 2. 
 
Peculiar Conditions of the Property: Despite the 1.2-acre size, the "buildable envelope" is 
severely restricted by a unique combination of topographical and legal constraints: 
• 
Environmental Constraints (Natural Wash): The property is substantially encumbered 
by a large natural wash that surrounds the east and south borders of the lot. Development 
within or too near the wash is restricted by drainage regulations, effectively “shrinking” 
the usable acreage of the lot. 
• 
Utility Easement (Communal Well): A communal well is located on the southeast 
corner of the property which carries a mandatory 100-foot setback for any habitable 
structures or septic components. There is also an easement to allow accessibility running 
along the south and west border of our lot. This "exclusion zone" renders the majority of 
the rear and side yards unbuildable. 
• 
Pre-Existing Infrastructure: The central and rear portion of the lot is occupied by the 
primary residence and a pre-existing shop. The pre-existing septic system and it’s 
required 100% reserve area are located in the front-central area, further limiting 
foundation placement. 
• 
Topographical Hardship: Due to the wash and the well radius, the only remaining 
stable "high ground" capable of supporting an 800-square-foot foundation is located 
within the northern front-yard area. 
2) Explanation of Hardship: A strict application of the 40-foot front setback (Section 502) 
would work an unnecessary hardship by depriving the property owner of the right to build a 
secondary dwelling—a privilege commonly enjoyed by other 1.2-acre RU-43 properties with 
fewer environmental constraints. 
 
This hardship is not self-imposed; it is a direct result of the site’s natural topography and the 
legal safety requirements of the community water source. The 800-square-foot size is the 
minimum necessary for a functional, ADA-compliant living space. The 5-foot setback is the 
minimum variance required to keep the structure out of the wash and maintain the 100-foot 
safety buffer from the well.

3) Impact: 
 
• 
Preservation of Character: With a 1.2-acre lot, the addition of an 800-square-foot unit, 
a 2,520-square-foot primary residence, and a 2,000-square-foot shop results in a total lot 
coverage of 5,320-square-feet, which equals a 10.18% lot coverage, well below the 30% 
maximum allowed in Section 502. This maintains the open, rural character of the RU-43 
district. 
• 
Visual Harmony: As a flag lot, the property is set back from the main road and sits 
behind another residence. The proposed 5-foot setback will not be visible to the general 
public and will not create a "crowded" appearance from the street. 
• 
Privacy and Screening: The ADU is positioned to act as a visual buffer between our 
property and the neighbor to the north, increasing privacy for both parties. Also, due to 
the position of our lot, the ADU will not be in close proximity to any neighbor’s primary 
living space or high-use outdoor areas. 
• 
Public Safety: This placement ensures the structure remains on high ground, avoiding 
the flood risks associated with the wash, protects the community’s water supply by 
respecting the 100-foot well radius, and does not impede access for emergency vehicles 
and utility maintenance. 
 
4) Conclusion: This variance is a request for a geographical adjustment to accommodate 
extreme site-specific constraints. It allows for the reasonable enjoyment of a 1.2-acre rural lot 
while prioritizing environmental protection and public health over a standard yard-depth 
requirement. It meets all of the requirements of section 602.3 and 502 for an ADU except for 
the location being in the front yard.

N0° 07' 17"W  315.16'
R40'
R20'
S89° 59' 26"E  166.12'
N89° 59' 19"W  166.16'
S0° 07' 44"E  315.17'
NICOLE SMITH
ACCESSORY BUILDING SITE PLAN
843 E CARLISE RD
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
8
A
B
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
DESCRIPTION
DATE
NO
REVISION  RECORD
DESCRIPTION
DATE
NO
SUBMITTAL RECORD
NOTICE
This site plan is a supplemental document only.  The ALTA
survey are to be provided by others.
SCALE: 1"=20'
ACCESSORY BUILDING SITE PLAN
1
C1
PREPARED BY:
LEGEND
DATE:
DWG SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:
SHEET
OF
DRAWING NO.:
SITE PLAN
PEDD0921014
VARIES
MAY 2022
TLL
DAP
DAP
1
1
C1
C
CONCRETE
P
FL
PAVEMENT
FLOW LINE
FF
FINISHED FLOOR
FOUND 1/2" REBAR
3" BRASS/ALUMINUM CAP 
INDICATES BOUNDARY CORNER
NOTHING FOUND OR SET
RIGHT OF WAY
R/W
CENTER LINE OR MONUMENT LINE
BOUNDARY LINE
CONCRETE SURFACE
FIRE HYDRANT
POWER POLE
GUY WIRE
WATER METER
WATER VALVE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
OVERHEAD UTILITIES
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
BLOCK/RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION
OUTFALL LOCATION 
EXISTING ELEVATION MARKER 
PROPOSED ELEVATION MARKER
RIGHT OF WAY
BARREL CACTUS
MESQUITE TREE
PALO VERDE TREE
SAQUARO CACTUS
RIP-RAP
GRAVEL
PAVEMENT
PAVERS
CHOLLA CACTUS
WV
NORTH
NORTH
Contact Arizona 811 at least two full
working days before you begin excavation
Call 811 or click Arizona811.com
F.F. ELEV=1,840.75'
SCALE: 1"=1'
STRUCTURE DIMENSION PLAN
2
C1
30' SIDE BSL (MAIN RESIDENCE)
40' FRONT BSL
40' REAR BSL (MAIN RESIDENCE)
164 CFS
CHANNEL LIMIT
20' EROSION
SETBACK
EXISTING WATER
METER FROM
WELL
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
EXISTING WATER
METER FROM
WELL
EXISTING  SHARED
WELL
EXISTING WELL
ELECTRIC PANEL
EXISTING UNDERGROUND
WELL STORAGE TANK
EXISTING WELL
PRESSURE TANK
ELECTRICAL
UTILITY SERVICE
DOMESTIC
SERVICE LINE
TBM:
ELEV: 1837.667'
DATUM: NAVD88
I&E / P.U.E. ESMT
PER FEE NO.
20210321243
10'
10'
47'-63
4"
111'-3"
161'-71
2"
Q100=164 CFS
@4.38 FT/S
Hw ELEV=1,838.73 FT
2.02 FT BELOW FF
R42'-41
4"
44'
33'
D50=6" RIP-RAP ADJACENT
TO HOUSE AT 12" DEPTH
19.75' X 57.75'
INSTALL AT 12" DEPTH
BELOW FINISHED SURFACE
ELEVATION SHOWN
57.75'
19.75'
13'-11
4"
65'-6"
50'
40'
EXISTING RESIDENCE
PROPOSED ACCESSORY
BUILDING
F.F. ELEV=1,839.5'
SITE DATA TABLE
ADDRESS:
843 E CARLISE RD
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
APN:
211-68-019C
TOTAL LAND AREA:
52,360 SF/1.20 AC
ZONING:
RU-43
FEMA FLOOD PLAIN DESIGNATION:
ZONE X PER FIRM 04013C0860L DATED 10/16/2013
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 19, NEW RIVER PARADISE,
ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT ON RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA IN BOOK 68
OF MAPS, PAGE 30.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
N00° 07' 17.00"W, (PER BOOK 68, PAGE 30, M.C.R) ALONG THE WEST
PROPERTY LINE, AS SHOWN HEREON.
SITE BENCHMARK
MACS--2MDOT 0.0F 5/8 SR TT177 CP181 7-2010
ELEV: 1837.289' / NAVD1988
AS-BUILT CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE "RECORD DRAWING" MEASUREMENTS AS
SHOWN HEREON WERE MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION OR AS NOTED
AND ARE CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
PROPOSED BUILDING DATA:
-LIVABLE AREA
2,701 SF
-COVERED PATIOS
   166 SF
-GARAGE
   781 SF
-WORKSHOP
2,000 SF
NEW TOTAL UNDER ROOF
         5,648 SF (4,421 FOOTPRINT)
-F.F. ELEV:
DWELLING:  1,840.75'
GARAGE:     1,840.42'
-TOTAL= 4,421 SF FOOTPRINT WITH 8.4% LOT COVERAGE
PROPOSED ADDITION:
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,000 SF WORKSHOP.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY LAND USE:
NORTH: RU-43
EAST: RU-43
SOUTH: RU-43
WEST: RU-43
OWNER INFO:
NICOLE SMITH
27441 N BLACK CANYON HWY UNIT 83
PHOENIX, AZ 85085
602-301-5344
PROPOSED 1
4" MINUS
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING 1
4" MINUS
DRIVEWAY
3' SIDE BSL (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES)
GRADING NOTE
REFER TO PERMIT B202207063 FOR WORK RELATED TO THE HOUSE,
CHANNEL, RIPRAP AND GRADING. GRADING FOR PAD WAS INCLUDED FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH B202207063.
30' SIDE BSL (MAIN RESIDENCE)
B202400050
Existing
New ADU                                800 SF
800
ADU
6,448 SF
5'-0"
5'-0"
BA260029 RCVD 4/14/26
height? cannot exceed 18' high
NEW ADU 800 SF
5' requested front
yard setback
BA260029
Ex. 1/4 Minus DW
New 1/4
minus dw
Existing
Existing